  |
Chapter 4Chapter 4. Writing the Results
And now
it is time to give birth. After weeks or months of careful research and
critical reflection, you are ready to bring your thinking to the light of day. The
critical moment has come and labor pains are about to begin. The great ideas
you have gestated struggle for life beyond the womb. Whether they live or die
will depend on how skillful a midwife you are. We are,
of course, talking about writing the research paper or thesis. How skillfully
or unskillfully you write the results of your research will either give it life
or assure its final resting place in a recycling program. It is a regrettable
fact that many good ideas wander about in confusion or are hopelessly lost in a
wilderness of bad writing. In this
chapter, we offer suggestions that will, we hope, help you to produce a healthy
and attractive brainchild. We are under no illusions that rules make good writers.
Like many other intellectual pursuits, good writing is much more an art than it
is a science. But "rules"—or more correctly, principles and
procedures—can help us to become better writers, that is, more communicative,
more readable. Good writing can and does happen; but it is seldom by chance
that it does so. The Mechanics
of Writing At a very
early stage of the research project, the researcher should begin building
structure. Clear, logical structure greatly facilitates good writing. Develop a
preliminary outline, beginning with broad categories and then refining. At a
later stage, a second or third revision of this outline can provide headings
and sub-headings in the written text itself. In an altered form, it may even
serve as the table of contents. It is
advisable, generally, to use headings and sub-headings in the body of the paper
or thesis/project. Headings are usually centered on the page and set off from
the text by three blank lines
(enter, enter, enter), both above and below—assuming that we are referring here
to single, not double, spaces. Sub-headings are similarly set off, but are placed
at the left-hand margin. They may or may not be italicized, as one wishes. Headings
and sub-headings have two basic functions: (1) to make it easier to locate
particular subject matter; and (2) to make the finished page much easier to
read. Endless unbroken pages of text can be both difficult and boring for the
reader. Most of us prefer our food in bite-size pieces, not in large masses. Arguments
work the same way. It is
particularly important in building structure to pay careful attention to
bridging and flow. Sections and chapters are not discrete essays, complete in
themselves. Sentences and paragraphs that provide bridges from one section or
chapter to the next assure that a smooth and uninterrupted flow is maintained.
Sometimes these are in the form of summary statements; sometimes, introductory
statements. Quoting and Citing Most
student research papers contain far too much quoted material. Many are
"scissor-and-paste" jobs. We have occasionally been handed
first-draft thesis chapters in which more than half of the material is
borrowed, en bloc—and completely "undigested." What is
the purpose of quoting? According to Jacques Barzun and Henry Graff, it is to
illustrate and not to prove. Quotations ( note: "quotations" and NOT "QUOTES"), they insist,
are convincing "samples" of the evidence on which the arguments of
your paper or thesis are based. Or a quotation may capture a
"characteristic or felicitous utterance." Under no
circumstances should quotations be used as "fillers" and
"extensions" for papers that would otherwise be too short. To begin
with, this practice should not be designated as quoting. It is borrowing. This
is not the purpose of quotations. Barzun
and Graff suggest two "rules of thumb" in using quotations: (1) keep
them short; and (2) insofar as it is possible, merge them into the text
(1985:339). In other words, as few lengthy block quotations as possible. Block
quotations, i.e., those that are indented and single-spaced, should be
infrequent and seldom longer than a paragraph. Probably the majority of readers
simply skip over them anyway, since they tend to be dense and difficult to
read. Much of
the time, it is better to summarize a writer's argument and restate it in your
own words than to quote it at length. Or, to state a scholar's position as you
see it and choose a representative quotation as evidence that you are indeed
correctly interpreting the scholar's thought. The
amount of material quoted, however, cannot be absolutely or universally
determined by rule. In some instances, depending on the nature of the thesis or
research paper, more frequent and lengthier quotations are not only
appropriate, but necessary. Particularly when using documents not generally
available to the reader, is it important on occasion to reproduce the material
being analyzed and interpreted. On the whole, however, quotations should not be
a major part of any writing of research. What is wanted is the researcher's
critical analysis, conclusions, and questions. Carefully selected
representative quotations are to facilitate that end. On the
other hand, a research paper or thesis/project requires documentation. If you use another writer's ideas, whether or not
you actually quote them, you must give
appropriate credit. To present the ideas of another as your own is
dishonest. Actually to "borrow" material, i.e., to reproduce material
from another source without giving credit, or in any way quoting, is plagiarism.
Plagiarism is a serious ethical and, possibly, legal offense. The
researcher/writer must be very careful at this point. To give appropriate
credit for the ideas and words of another person or writer is to cite. A citation includes the name of the person or author and the source
from which the ideas or words are drawn. Like the MLA and APA styles, the AST
style requires that citations be included in the body of the text and enclosed
in parentheses. Writing Style Formal The
writing of research papers and theses/projects is a formal endeavor. Formal
language and expression are called for. Chatty, folksy language, full of
colloquialisms or slang is very inappropriate—except when you are quoting
someone else for some special reason. In a "term paper" dealing with
a passage from the biblical book of Amos, a student produced this
"gem:" "A lot of people
think that Amos was talking about socialism. But I don't think that's the case
at all. I think they're barking up the wrong tree." In the
first place, the contractions
"don't," "that's," and "they're" are out
of place in formal writing. Contractions shouldn't be used; it just isn't
appropriate to do so. Of course we should have used "should not" and
"is not." But we have made
our point. Secondly,
colloquialisms such as "barking up the wrong tree" are equally out of
place in formal writing. Colloquialisms are not incorrect or sub-standard
speech forms, but, as we have indicated above, chatty, folksy usages that are
quite appropriate in informal settings. Research writing, however, is not akin
to a personal chat with someone, or a letter to one's parents. Thirdly,
the first person pronoun, "I," while certainly not incorrect, should
be used sparingly. It is not a "dirty" word, nor is it always
inappropriate, as an earlier scholarly tradition insisted. John Clive, a
professor of history and literature at Harvard University, defends the use of
"that most disgusting of the pronouns," as Edward Gibbon called it.
The reasons for considering it to be that, Clive says, lie partly in [false]
modesty, partly in the naive belief that "objectivity" could be
fostered by being impersonal, but mainly in the notion that "good taste
dictates distance between author and reader" (1989:25). Even
though this tradition considers the use of "I" to be bad taste, it is
to be preferred in most cases to the vague and occasionally misleading
"this writer," or some similar "chaste disguise," as Clive
calls it. In either case, one is referring to oneself. We refer to the views of
others as "his" or "hers." Why should not my views be
designated as "my views?" We say, "he believes this to be
true." Surely only a false modesty
then prevents me from saying, "I believe this to be true." Granted,
this is much more appropriate in footnotes. They are generally less formal than
the text to which they are attached in any event. Even so, to insist that we
should always avoid the use of a perfectly normal and good English pronoun in
formal writing is to be stuffy and overly-formal. Formal
writing should not be stiff, labored, or ostentatious and "learned"
sounding. Occasionally, writers can be excessively formal, making their
material something of an intellectual pain to read. We should avoid this
extreme as well. Technical A
research paper or thesis/project is not an essay for a class in English
Composition. It is "technical" writing as opposed to "creative"
writing. Clever opening sentences or illustrations, dramatic climaxes, florid
or "flowery" language, heavy with "embroidery," full of
similes and metaphors, is the stuff of undergraduate English papers. Nor is research writing
"journalistic," in the sense that it is aimed at the general public.
To be sure, it adopts a "rhetorical stance," to use Jacqueline
Berke's felicitous term (1976:9-10). That is, it has identified a specific
audience which it addresses. In this case, it is the academic community—and
usually a specialized segment of it—which the research writer has in mind. This
is important, Berke says, to prevent the writer from writing in a vacuum, or
speaking in an inappropriate voice. Technical writing, like any good writing, is characterized by
simplicity, accuracy, economy, and clarity. But it is truly amazing how seldom
technical writing passes these tests. A not unusual example of this is provided
by C. Lawrence Brook: It is my own personal opinion that
the impact of an accident involving an air vehicle journeying over the
over-populated environs of Mexico City would be substantially greater than at
the average Latin American city, although because the size of the facility at
the mammoth central American city is greater than average, the possibility of
an incident taking place there is approximately figured to be some-what lower
than average. Assuming that planes flown to Mexico City could be reduced in
size, this would lower the casualty rate as well as if a proportion of the population
could be encouraged to move to coastal cities, the effects of an incident
thereafter would be better than average (1982:22). None of the characteristics of good technical writing
is to be found in this example. To determine exactly what it is the writer of
the report is trying to say is no mean feat. All of us will agree that Brook's
paraphrase of this "gobbledygook" is much more communicative: In my opinion an airplane accident over Mexico City would be relatively
more destructive than over most Latin American cities. This is due to Mexico
City's dense population. Two things could be done to reduce casualties: fly
smaller airplanes into Mexico City; and encourage Mexico City residents to move
to coastal cities. Fortunately, the chances that an accident might actually
occur in Mexico City are less than they are elsewhere because of the size and
location of the airport (1982:22). Now the
technical "report" is simple, accurate and economical in its use of
language, and clear enough for most readers to grasp without difficulty. These
are the goals to which writers of research papers, theses, and projects should
aspire. For this reason, the characteristics of simplicity, accuracy, economy,
and clarity are discussed below under separate headings. Simplicity A great
deal of writing, including theological writing, is characterized by unnecessary
complexity. We could quote example after example from monographs—including
textbooks and articles that virtually defy clear understanding. The writers
appear to be part of that "tradition" which believes that complexity
of thought and language is in direct proportion to the learnedness of the
writer. One of
the most notable characteristics of such writing is the length of sentences and
paragraphs. Some sentences we have "collected" run well over 100 words. You will note in the Mexico
Airport example above, the entire paragraph consists of two very lengthy
complex sentences. Such run-on sentences are the bane of the editor's life—and
a great temptation to most writers. Sentences
should seldom be longer than 30 to 40 words, but should vary in length. If all
sentences are long and complex, the effect is that of monotony. If, on the
other hand, all of the sentences are short, the effect is choppiness, producing
a kind of literary seasickness. Good
writing is characterized by clear, straightforward sentences. It seeks to avoid
the long and excessively complex sentences to which we are so frequently
subjected in the technical material we read. Sentences deal with a single
thought, but not necessarily all of it. If the thought is complex, it can be
"de-complexified" to some extent by using two or more sentences to express
it. Long paragraphs also contribute to
complexity. Paragraphs that are a page or more in length are not uncommon. No
paragraph should be that length. As a general "rule of thumb,"
paragraphs should be no longer than a half page. But, like sentences again, they
should be varied in length to avoid the monotonous or choppy effects that can
result otherwise.
Simplicity can be achieved also by the use of simple and direct language. A major offender in technical writing
is the use, not of technical language, which is often necessary and can be
explained, but of needlessly "big" words. A sentence like,
"Theoretical lucidity is not necessarily enhanced by terminological
ponderosity" (a real sentence, by the way), should be considered unacceptable,
even in technical writing. It is pompous-sounding. "Read" is
preferable to "peruse;" "clarity" to "lucidity;"
"determine" to "ascertain;" "happen" to
"transpire;" "obtain" to "procure;" and so on.
Keep it simple. William
Stunk, Jr. and E.B. White recommend that the language used in writing be
positive, definite, specific, and concrete. A sentence such as, "He was
not very often on time" is better, Strunk and White argue, stated
positively: "He usually came late." Or, "He did not think that
studying Latin was a sensible way to use one's time" is better stated as,
"He thought the study of Latin a waste of time" (1979:19).
"Prefer the specific to the general, the definite to the vague, the
concrete to the abstract," Strunk and White suggest. "A period of
unfavorable weather set in" is much better as, "It rained every day
for a week" (1979:21). It is specific, to the point; it defies complexity. Accuracy The
second characteristic of good technical writing is accuracy. Theoretical and factual
accuracy are, of course, not only desirable but absolutely necessary—insofar as
that is possible. But the accuracy we are discussing here is accuracy in the
use of language. In other words, grammatical
and semantic accuracy. It is
surprising how frequently grammatical errors occur in student research papers
and theses/projects. Among the common errors we have noted are: double
negatives ("cannot hardly," "never gave nobody," and
"did not do nothing); and split infinitives ("to openly and honestly
respond" instead of the grammatically correct, "to respond openly and
honestly). Other common errors are: "that" for "who"
("The person that did this . . ."); "less" for
"fewer" ("Less than ten people . . ."); and "none
are" for "none is" ("none are wise" instead of the
grammatically correct "none is wise"). Pronouns
also appear to be a rather vexing problem. "He sings better than me"
is incorrect; one should say, "He sings better than I (do)." "I run faster than she (does),"
not " . . . faster than her."
"Who" and "whom" give trouble as well (see Strunk
and White 1979:11f), as do the subjective and objective forms of pronouns:
I/me; we/us; he/him; she/her; and they/them. Most of us shudder a bit at
deviant forms such as, "Me and her saw him do it." But too few of us
recognize the error of "This is a problem for you and I." When pronouns are objects of verbs or
prepositions, the objective form is called for. Thus, ". . . you and
me"—and perhaps ". . . you and her," as well as "them." Semantic
accuracy is also a concern. It is, for example, simply incorrect to use
"parameters" as a synonym for "boundaries." A parameter is any constant, with variable
values, used as a referent for determining other variables—so the dictionary
says. A boundary is something that marks limits. It is a semantic error to use
these two words interchangeably. A
sentence such as, "This is the antipathy of love," is nonsensical.
The correct word here is probably "antithesis." "We are trying to solve a basic human
need," is equally in error. We solve problems, but meet needs. Or, a
sentence such as, "We have had to evolve our own methods." "Evolve" is an intransitive verb.
Things evolve; they cannot be evolved by anyone or anything. Examples
such as these are not unusual or uncommon. One rather constantly finds them in
all kinds of writing, including technical writing. Aim, then, for accuracy. Economy The third
characteristic cum requirement of good writing is economy. A great deal of
writing of all kinds is characterized by obesity,
that is, bloated, excessive use of adverbs, adjectives—especially
superlatives—and needless repetition. This repetition we refer to as
"redundancy."
Redundancy involves the use of words or phrases that are not needed.
Such phrases as, "the last and final call," "totally surrounded,"
"totally destroyed,"
"most unique,"
"serious crisis,"
"true facts,"
"factual numbers," and "equally as costly," involve
redundancy. The adjective or other modifier, in each case, is unwanted (see
Newman 1974:21). Strunk
and White assert, "Vigorous writing is concise. A sentence should contain
no unnecessary words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences, for the same reason
that a drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary
parts" (1979:23). Many commonplace usages violate this principle, Strunk
and White say. For example, "he is a man who" should simply be
"he;" "in a hasty
manner" is simply "hastily;" or "the reason why is
that," simply "because."
Jacqueline Berke, also, advises us to deal with redundancy by
eliminating unnecessary words and long sentence elements. Here is one of her
examples: "The agnostic is one who holds that he has no knowledge of God,
indeed that the human mind is incapable of know-ing whether there is or is not
a God." Berke rewrites the
sentence thusly: "An agnostic maintains that the human mind cannot know
whether or not God exists" (1976:440). The first sentence contains 30
words; the second, 14. Often,
Berke suggests, complex sentences can easily be converted to simple sentences,
thus removing un-necessary words. Predications can be reduced, independent
clauses can be made subordinate, clauses can be reduced to phrases or
adjectives, and phrases can be reduced to adjectives (see Berke 1976:442ff). One of
the chief enemies of economy in almost all writing is the repetitious use of
"there is/there are." The following two sentences were taken from a
thesis: "There were two more historical events during this time which
strongly affected how both groups viewed one another. There was the Taiping
Rebellion starting in 1850 and then there was a second war between China and
Britain and France." This can
easily be re-written, eliminating "there is/there are:" "Two
other events during this time strongly affected how each group viewed the
other: the Taiping Rebellion, beginning in 1850; and a war between China and
Britain and France." By dealing
with "there was/there were," we have removed 10 unnecessary words. Clarity And
finally, good technical writing is characterized by clarity. The major problem
with the language of the Mexico City airport example above is that it is so
opaque and garbled that it almost defies understanding. If it met the tests of
simplicity, accuracy, and economy, it would almost certainly be clear and
precise. But it is none of these. Much
technical writing is overly-general and imprecise in its use of language. It
is, in other words, "fuzzy."
A good deal of that fuzziness comes from ambiguity, i.e., not clear, uncertain, indefinite, vague. What is
ambiguous can be understood in more than one way. A sentence such as, "She
loves cake more than me," can be understood either to be saying, "She
loves cake more than [she loves] me," or "She loves cake more than [I
do]."
Out-of-place or dangling phrases can create ambiguity. We are not
referring to the many humorous ones that occur, such as, "A widow with a
distinct twinkle in her eye named Elizabeth." (One wonders what the name
of her other eye was!). We have in mind those that can actually be misread,
such as, "He arrived just as I started out in his truck to feed the
cows." Where does "in his
truck" belong in the sentence? After "arrived?" After "I
started out?" After "feed the cows?" It could be any one of
these three. A
television commercial advertises a product that has been "helping families
to grow for more than a century."
The same family? The mother should long since have been dead from
child-bearing. Did the writer of the commercial mean to say, "For more
than a century, helping families to grow?" Where prepositional phrases are placed in sentences can change
the meaning of the sentences.
"Only" represents another class of word which, if misplaced,
can create ambiguity. For example, "He only ordered six copies," can
be understood to mean: (1) he only ordered six (but did not pay for them); or
(2) he ordered only six (and refuses to pay for the additional copies). But most
confusing of all is the jargon or "gobbledygook" so loved by
pseudo-intellectuals, business people, and bureaucrats. A corporate executive,
when asked if his firm planned to buy out a local firm, replied, "I would
say that we are definitely in an acquisition mode." (What does he mean,
"would say?" He did say
it!). All he really needed to say was "yes."
"Gobbledygook" is inflated and pretentious language which uses
11 words where one will do, or multi-syllabic words where words of one, two, or
three syllables are sufficient. Wordy, but indecipherable; windy, but
meaningless. Keep the "gobble" out of your writing. GOBBLEDYGOOK College officials used to talk to one another. No longer. Today,
they articulate with one another. Gym classes once
were in the physical-education department. No longer. At Rutgers University,
they are in the department of human
kinetics. In many schools, what was the library is now a learning-resource-center. Those are just a
few examples of a language disorder known as "education-ese," variants of which afflict business, science,
and medicine. Its governmental form is gobbledygook,
a term coined in the late 1930s by a Texas congressman [Maury Maverick] after
he spent months reading official reports larded with bloated, empty words. A more serious
ailment is new-speak, euphemism gone bonkers to the point of standing truth on
its head, such as the Ministry of Truth, which in the George Orwell novel 1984 propagated lies. Plain-English
advocates des-pair over such linguistic maladies. "They debase the
language and obscure thought,"
charges Lt. Col. Robert Murawski, associate professor of English at the
Air Force Academy. Murawski, who
advises the White House on clear writing, contends that "the real danger
is not grammatical flubs but clotted expression that makes ideas needlessly
complex." (From U.S. News &
World Report, Feb 18, 1985). |